Is Romance Bad for People?

[polynices]

Today's Guardian reports psychologist Susan Quilliam's opinion that romantic fiction typically depicts:

"... the heroine being rescued from danger by the hero, and then abandoning herself joyfully to a life of intercourse-driven multiple orgasms and endless trouble-free pregnancies in order to cement their marital devotion"

and that Romance consequently promotes an unrealistic and dangerous set of sexual expectations in its readers.

(The full report's here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jul/07/mills-and-boon-sexual-health-problems )

She says that "a huge number of the issues that we see in our clinics and therapy rooms are influenced by romantic fiction" - including, among other things, her finding that idealized descriptions of sex in romance novels lead to their readers failing to use condoms in real life in order to allow themselves to be "swept up" in the sexual moment.

More generally, Plato decided to comprehensively ban poets from his ideal republic on the grounds that all fiction is bad for us.

Any thoughts? Does fiction - and especially romantic fiction - lead readers into false expectations in their daily lives?

- polynices

 

[amicus]

I watched a Disney Channel film about a ten year old boy and an eleven year old girl recently, Cynthia Nixon, I think, the boy had a 'crush' on the girl...you do remember what a 'crush' is?

Romantic love is a powerful and real emotion, right up there with maternal concerns and survival and one should not for a moment question the importance and authenticity of such feelings.

Of course, conflicts can lead one to the couch, one needs to know oneself and to be honest or any relationship can lead to trauma.

Who said life should be vanilla and without conflict and turmoil? Which is the presumption or thesis of the OP.

amicus

 

[lovecraft68]

Today's Guardian reports psychologist Susan Quilliam's opinion that romantic fiction typically depicts:

"... the heroine being rescued from danger by the hero, and then abandoning herself joyfully to a life of intercourse-driven multiple orgasms and endless trouble-free pregnancies in order to cement their marital devotion"

and that Romance consequently promotes an unrealistic and dangerous set of sexual expectations in its readers.

(The full report's here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jul/07/mills-and-boon-sexual-health-problems )

She says that "a huge number of the issues that we see in our clinics and therapy rooms are influenced by romantic fiction" - including, among other things, her finding that idealized descriptions of sex in romance novels lead to their readers failing to use condoms in real life in order to allow themselves to be "swept up" in the sexual moment.

More generally, Plato decided to comprehensively ban poets from his ideal republic on the grounds that all fiction is bad for us.

Any thoughts? Does fiction - and especially romantic fiction - lead readers into false expectations in their daily lives?

- polynices

The key word that these idiots never take into consideration is "Fiction"

Of course romance features over the top men who are rich, good looking and romantic. Or sometimes poor 'bad boys' but one way or another they are geared towards womens fantasies.

Not sure how sales would be if Nora Roberst heroine was swept off of her feet by me, a 5'8" 170 pound warehouse manager with a ged and a generally shitty attitude.

Fantasy is a healthy part of a persons life. Look at the site we are on. Talk about unrealistic expectations!

My sister does not want to sleep with me. Nor does my mom. my wife refuses to let me bring friends over to bang her. And when I tried to force myself on a woman I actually got arrested for it because she said no really means no!

So perhaps lit is unhealthy as well!

These people need to mind their own business. Escapism is an important part of life. No one wants to read about reality. We live it.

 

[flameinacorset]

The writer of that article seems to believe that people are totally stupid, that we're not able to separate fact from fiction. I'm well aware that Romance fiction is indeed fiction, that's why I read it. If I want something real, I watch the news.

I believe strongly that escapism is good for the soul, it relieves stress.

In the books I read, there are no perfect people having unbeliavably amazing sex after the hero has saved the damsell in distress. My romance books are filled with difficult personalities colliding, misunderstandings and in the end, people loving each other, not despite, but BECAUSE of their weaknesses.

Damn, I hate people dissing Romance novels! I can't even tell you how many times people have assumed I'm stupid because I read romantic stuff.

Okay, I'll stop now. Otherwise this rant will go on and on.

 

[PennLady]

I can join the rant.

I have to admit there was a time when I was dismissive of romantic fiction. I don't think I thought less of those who read it, just noted it as a genre that didn't interest me at the time.

Then I was proofing a paper for a friend of mine on, of all things, romance novels, when she was in grad school. It talked about what was necessary (generally speaking) for a book to be successful, and other elements, and it was interesting. That was when I realized a lot of those writers put as much or more effort into it as any other author in any other genre.

And after I moved, I found that I was ready for a change of reading material and decided I wanted to give some romance a try. I found Lit, and in the course of sorting through what I liked, decided I wanted to try writing.

At no point in any of this did I confuse real life with fiction. I know there won't be sweeping off of feet, etc. I enjoy reading that from time to time, sure. On the other hand, I also enjoy stories (and try to write such stories) where things are not perfect, where people rub each other the wrong way and make mistakes before things are worked out. Not totally solved, but worked out for a reasonable HEA ending.

If people are going into therapists' office and blaming their issues on "but I read..." then they have larger problems.

 

[amicus]

If one believes that one cannot climb that mountain; one will never try.

But if one believes they will find that soul mate, they will search.

Prepare, perhaps, to be disappointed, but never give up the quest, or all is lost.

Idealized, fantasy Romance is what life is all about.

If not, then what? Arranged marriages, condoms and birth control?

that sucks..

meh...

amicus

 

[SydneyBlake]

"... the heroine being rescued from danger by the hero, and then abandoning herself joyfully to a life of intercourse-driven multiple orgasms and endless trouble-free pregnancies in order to cement their marital devotion"

- polynices

Do you mean to tell me that I shouldn't expect a life of intercourse-driven multiple orgasms? Well, don't any of you assholes tell my DH this, because I have his dick obeying on command, and I haven't heard any complaints yet!

And PennLady, my experience mirrors yours. I used to be too cerebral to sink to the level of reading romances. Then I read a Jennifer Crusie novel and found it to be quite fun. Nothing wrong with a little escapism.

 

[PennLady]

Do you mean to tell me that I shouldn't expect a life of intercourse-driven multiple orgasms? Well, don't any of you assholes tell my DH this, because I have his dick obeying on command, and I haven't heard any complaints yet!

And PennLady, my experience mirrors yours. I used to be too cerebral to sink to the level of reading romances. Then I read a Jennifer Crusie novel and found it to be quite fun. Nothing wrong with a little escapism.

Syd, I've actually read a ton of Nora Roberts novels since I started reading romances. I know it's influenced how I write, as I switch POVs within scenes as she does. Not always, but some. I've read others, of course, but she seems to know how to hit all the buttons.

And no, there's absolutely nothing wrong with escapism. I used to read sf/fantasy for just that reason. To be tossed into another world -- a world the author created in their imagination and made real to the reader -- and just to have fun, whether with a space cowboy or a dark shadow creeping over the land. SF/fantasy often suffers from the same disdain as romance, so perhaps it was a natural shift for me.

Note on pregnancies -- to be honest, having been pregnant twice, I'd rather read about a problem-free one than a traumatic one, as mine had their own elements of trauma. More than that, though, I'd rather read about a fairly realistic one. In the back of my mind is the desire to write a story that includes a pregnant woman going through a relatively normal pregnancy, with a few issues. But since having kids, it's tough to read or watch stories where kids are in danger, or the pregnant mother is under threat.

 

[flameinacorset]

I can join the rant.

I have to admit there was a time when I was dismissive of romantic fiction. I don't think I thought less of those who read it, just noted it as a genre that didn't interest me at the time.

Then I was proofing a paper for a friend of mine on, of all things, romance novels, when she was in grad school. It talked about what was necessary (generally speaking) for a book to be successful, and other elements, and it was interesting. That was when I realized a lot of those writers put as much or more effort into it as any other author in any other genre.

And after I moved, I found that I was ready for a change of reading material and decided I wanted to give some romance a try. I found Lit, and in the course of sorting through what I liked, decided I wanted to try writing.

At no point in any of this did I confuse real life with fiction. I know there won't be sweeping off of feet, etc. I enjoy reading that from time to time, sure. On the other hand, I also enjoy stories (and try to write such stories) where things are not perfect, where people rub each other the wrong way and make mistakes before things are worked out. Not totally solved, but worked out for a reasonable HEA ending.

If people are going into therapists' office and blaming their issues on "but I read..." then they have larger problems.

It's always nice to hear about people who gave Romance a chance. It was a good thing, especially because you're now one of the persons who has helped me greatly to feed my 'addiction'.

 

[oggbashan]

My father used to read Westerns written in the 1930s to 1960s, the period when the good guy always won and got the girl.

He knew, before he opened the book, that the hero would survive and law and order would be restored. He also knew that his westerns were the equivalent of my mother's romance novels. They both saw their reading as escapist, entertaining, and a relaxation.

For "real" reading, they would tackle anything, but their Western/Romamce reading was for late night reading. They knew that if they couldn't finish their book that night the story would always end happily.

Writing such books is a skill that has to be learned and practiced. Even though the story and plot might be formulaic, the art was to make each book interesting and entertaining to read.

I think that my father preferred Louis L'Amour and my mother Georgette Heyer. They could both read Zane Grey.

 

[3113]

She's totally right. And totally stupid.

The key word that these idiots never take into consideration is "Fiction"

The writer of that article seems to believe that people are totally stupid, that we're not able to separate fact from fiction.

Actually, I'm happy to take her part and agree with her to some extent. People are stupid, and no, they can't separate fact from fiction. In fact, I would argue that the only mistake this woman is making is not understanding that this inability to separate fact from fiction is likely wired into us. An evolutionary necessity. Seriously. If we could separate fact from fiction, why would we keep doing the same stupid thing over and over again (like stay with that person who keeps promising to change but doesn't, or keep giving money to the guy who says the "End of the World" is coming...again! or keep arguing, against all evidence, that creationism is equal to evolution as a science)?

Now don't get me wrong. I don't mean that people can't ever separate fact from fiction. I just mean that among the many fictions they pick to enjoy, there will be ones they decide to believe no matter what the facts. So, Lovecraft, a reader may not believe that all moms want to sleep with their sons however much they enjoy that fantasy. But they may still believe, contrary to all evidence, that being gay is a choice. They may see Cthulhu as just a scary story, yet still believe with all their heart that ghosts or demons exist.

So. Of course there are women who believe romance can happen that way it does in fiction. Duh. Or have you honestly and truly never met a woman who has gone on and on about her belief in a "soul mate" and how perfect he will be for her? Have you honestly and truly never met a man or woman with fictional and completely unrealistic expectations in regards to love? There are women who swallow those romances hook, line and sinker. They think such relationships can happen. And there are, likewise, plenty of women like Pennlady, Flameinacorset, etc. who know it's fiction and just happen to enjoy reading that fiction.

This woman is right. There are those who believe it, and if they do, it's probably a bad thing to believe. But she's the one who can't separate fact from fiction if she thinks pointing this out is going to change anything. A successful fiction that people not only enjoy but, in many cases, want to believe isn't going to go away. Not unless someone comes up with a pill that changes that part of our chemistry and makes us see all fiction as fiction.

 

[SydneyBlake]

Note on pregnancies -- .

I hear you. In an interview years ago, Demi Moore was asked what was the most romantic thing she'd ever done for her husband (Bruce Willis, at the time). She said, "Well, I think giving him three children is pretty romantic.". Maybe their marriage sank, but I still find pregnancy to be very romantic. Carrying a part of the man I love inside me is just plain sexy. (Alas, changing diapers and midnight feedings, not so much....)

 

[flameinacorset]

Actually, I'm happy to take her part and agree with her to some extent. People are stupid, and no, they can't separate fact from fiction. In fact, I would argue that the only mistake this woman is making is not understanding that this inability to separate fact from fiction is likely wired into us. An evolutionary necessity. Seriously. If we could separate fact from fiction, why would we keep doing the same stupid thing over and over again (like stay with that person who keeps promising to change but doesn't, or keep giving money to the guy who says the "End of the World" is coming...again! or keep arguing, against all evidence, that creationism is equal to evolution as a science)?

Now don't get me wrong. I don't mean that people can't ever separate fact from fiction. I just mean that among the many fictions they pick to enjoy, there will be ones they decide to believe no matter what the facts. So, Lovecraft, a reader may not believe that all moms want to sleep with their sons however much they enjoy that fantasy. But they may still believe, contrary to all evidence, that being gay is a choice. They may see Cthulhu as just a scary story, yet still believe with all their heart that ghosts or demons exist.

So. Of course there are women who believe romance can happen that way it does in fiction. Duh. Or have you honestly and truly never met a woman who has gone on and on about her belief in a "soul mate" and how perfect he will be for her? Have you honestly and truly never met a man or woman with fictional and completely unrealistic expectations in regards to love? There are women who swallow those romances hook, line and sinker. They think such relationships can happen. And there are, likewise, plenty of women like Pennlady, Flameinacorset, etc. who know it's fiction and just happen to enjoy reading that fiction.

This woman is right. There are those who believe it, and if they do, it's probably a bad thing to believe. But she's the one who can't separate fact from fiction if she thinks pointing this out is going to change anything. A successful fiction that people not only enjoy but, in many cases, want to believe isn't going to go away. Not unless someone comes up with a pill that changes that part of our chemistry and makes us see all fiction as fiction.

I agree, that some people just are stupid and unable to separate reality from fiction. But these people have unrealistic expectations about life generally, not just about their love life. Like Pennlady said, these people have bigger problems than reading Romance. People see what they want to see, so if you are unrealistic and unable to see things from many perspectives, everything is sort of bad for you. Everything gets twisted to mean something it didn't originally mean.
So, why attack specially Romantic fiction? Or fiction at all?

 

[SydneyBlake]

My father used to read Westerns written in the 1930s to 1960s, the period when the good guy always won and got the girl.

My father, too, Og.

I had a love/hate relationship with my father, so when he passed away in '01, I had ambiguous feelings about it. I didn't know how to deal with the conflicting feelings, but knew I wanted to focus on the good memories of him.

One of those was his love of those westerns. Louis Lamour and Zane Grey. I bought one and stuck it under my dad's hands so he'd have something to help him pass the time. Before the casket was closed, others started putting mementos in there with him. I smile at the memory.

 

[3113]

So, why attack specially Romantic fiction? Or fiction at all?

This woman's "attack" on it probably has to do with the fact that her speciality is dealing with women who have relationship problems, and she's found that these woman are especially susceptible to believing romantic fiction. Like I said, I believe her right in saying that many women do buy the fiction (or want to buy it), but I don't think pointing it out is going to save anyone. She can't, after all, be hoping that women will stop reading it just because she says it's dangerous, or that publishers will put warning labels on Romances as they do on cigarettes. Not gonna happen.

She, perhaps, is hoping that romance writers will try to be a little more responsible and "realistic." However, Fiction is driven by the marketplace. The myth that readers prefer is the myth that remains--like the myth that true romance can't happen with a condom.

As for the person who believes this fiction is true having a larger problem, yes, of course they do. But if you've got a drug addict you don't treat his larger problem (like dealing with a bad childhood) while letting him continue to abuse the drugs. So, we'll agree that any woman who is having unprotected sex because fiction tells her it's more romantic certainly has a larger problem that needs addressing. But I don't think it runs contrary to helping her with this problem if she's taken off the romances and told that she has to read pamphlets on venereal diseases.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In the BDSM forum I constantly see women who show up on the scene, with a whole set of assumptions of what BDSM should-- must-- is going to be for them. There's a tough, loving Dominant Male who will slap them on the butt and they will Realise their Deepest Inner Most Need to Be Possesed By The Exactly Right Man, There's a collar, which is the latest accessory at that white wedding...

It's Romance novel hogwash, and the romantica writers have jumped on the BDSM bandwagon. As far as I can tell, those writers have got their notions from reading someone else's BDSM romantica. They can research and find accurate info about rope bondage, or figging if they want to be incredibly racy, but they load that same old same old het power structure on top of it, and make it look like Male Dominance (perfectly gentlemanly way) is part and parcel of every woman's BDMS experience. That Submission is the Key To His heart.

It's frustrating, and really is dangerous and damaging. In this case it's demonstrably so, since these women actually are pretty ignorant about BDSM practices, and actually do expect to find real information in the novels. I just read a review of one, in which the reviewer totally was impressed at the authenticity because the Dom reminded the lady about her safeword. That made it unusually accurate.

But the truth is more like the woman I met Friday last week, who is recovering from ligament damage because her Dom told her he would be very sad and hurt if she safeworded. So she didn't, even though she should have-- because she believed those fucking romance novels.

The romance writers have influenced het BDSM to the extent that they've changed the terminology that people know. The words "top" and "bottom" which signify (obviously) the relative positions of the couple-- acting and acted upon, leading and following-- and which can be situational depending on each persons' preferences in a given activity-- have become rarely used. Instead, we hear "Dominant" and "Submissive." Which are identities. a Dominant ALWAYS dominates. A Submissive ALWAYS submits.

Some folk just like to get their kink on without the romance rigamarole. But they show up on the scene, looking for play partners and they get judged as not being up to the standard.

 

[PennLady]

It's always nice to hear about people who gave Romance a chance. It was a good thing, especially because you're now one of the persons who has helped me greatly to feed my 'addiction'.

That's sweet. But you're not going to blame me if you go to a therapist, right?

 

[PennLady]

This woman's "attack" on it probably has to do with the fact that her speciality is dealing with women who have relationship problems, and she's found that these woman are especially susceptible to believing romantic fiction. Like I said, I believe her right in saying that many women do buy the fiction (or want to buy it), but I don't think pointing it out is going to save anyone. She can't, after all, be hoping that women will stop reading it just because she says it's dangerous, or that publishers will put warning labels on Romances as they do on cigarettes. Not gonna happen.

Well, the women she sees might be "susceptible," but then again to me, that indicates a bigger problem. You're right, though, that they won't stop just on her advice. I suppose they have to hit the romance equivalent of rock bottom.

She, perhaps, is hoping that romance writers will try to be a little more responsible and "realistic." However, Fiction is driven by the marketplace. The myth that readers prefer is the myth that remains--like the myth that true romance can't happen with a condom.

If that's what she's hoping for, then like you, I think she'll be disappointed. Some people will try to write "realistic" stories -- as I've said, I try to do that -- but ultimately I have a happy ending. I like happy endings. And there's nothing wrong with striving for a happy ending, as long as you realize there will be bumps on the way, but then we're back to the start of the problem.

As for the person who believes this fiction is true having a larger problem, yes, of course they do. But if you've got a drug addict you don't treat his larger problem (like dealing with a bad childhood) while letting him continue to abuse the drugs. So, we'll agree that any woman who is having unprotected sex because fiction tells her it's more romantic certainly has a larger problem that needs addressing. But I don't think it runs contrary to helping her with this problem if she's taken off the romances and told that she has to read pamphlets on venereal diseases.

I wonder if it's not so much that these women believe the romance novels as it is the idea that there wouldn't be so many books written with these elements if they weren't true. More like, they don't believe it b/c they read it; they believe it b/c why else would so many people write about it? I hope I'm getting that across properly.

And for the record, I do sometimes mention condoms or the pill in my stories. I've noticed a few do. Not romantic, but realistic.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I ask writers that they begin to add safe sex practices into the mythic mixture. I believe it's possible to do.

 

[lovecraft68]

In the BDSM forum I constantly see women who show up on the scene, with a whole set of assumptions of what BDSM should-- must-- is going to be for them. There's a tough, loving Dominant Male who will slap them on the butt and they will Realise their Deepest Inner Most Need to Be Possesed By The Exactly Right Man, There's a collar, which is the latest accessory at that white wedding...

It's Romance novel hogwash, and the romantica writers have jumped on the BDSM bandwagon. As far as I can tell, those writers have got their notions from reading someone else's BDSM romantica. They can research and find accurate info about rope bondage, or figging if they want to be incredibly racy, but they load that same old same old het power structure on top of it, and make it look like Male Dominance (perfectly gentlemanly way) is part and parcel of every woman's BDMS experience. That Submission is the Key To His heart.

It's frustrating, and really is dangerous and damaging. In this case it's demonstrably so, since these women actually are pretty ignorant about BDSM practices, and actually do expect to find real information in the novels. I just read a review of one, in which the reviewer totally was impressed at the authenticity because the Dom reminded the lady about her safeword. That made it unusually accurate.

But the truth is more like the woman I met Friday last week, who is recovering from ligament damage because her Dom told her he would be very sad and hurt if she safeworded. So she didn't, even though she should have-- because she believed those fucking romance novels.

The romance writers have influenced het BDSM to the extent that they've changed the terminology that people know. The words "top" and "bottom" which signify (obviously) the relative positions of the couple-- acting and acted upon, leading and following-- and which can be situational depending on each persons' preferences in a given activity-- have become rarely used. Instead, we hear "Dominant" and "Submissive." Which are identities. a Dominant ALWAYS dominates. A Submissive ALWAYS submits.

Some folk just like to get their kink on without the romance rigamarole. But they show up on the scene, looking for play partners and they get judged as not being up to the standard.

You can also find these women on the club scemne. They are practically walking around with targets on their backs. Most Dom's I know would not take advantage but many will. Sad to say the ligament story is not as rare as it should be.

Over the course of my series I have received several comments that "I get it right:" on the BDSM front. Things about thhe fact that in a true relationship there needs to be trust and it starts slow and works its way up. one of the more recent one's complimented me on the fact that they have a safe word. Shame having it right is what gets attention, shows how many misconceptions are out there.

 

[PennLady]

I ask writers that they begin to add safe sex practices into the mythic mixture. I believe it's possible to do.

I think it absolutely is. I think part of my problem for forgetting such things is that I've been married for 11 years and had only two sexual partners in my life. I'm guessing, but I'd have to ask, that younger people today probably do have conversations about testing and such, at least sometimes.

I've found that the easiest thing is to have the woman on the Pill, although that of course doesn't cover protection from STDs.

As for the BDSM elements -- it is a shame when people are injured as a result of misperceptions. Again, I think it may be a matter of people reading and thinking "they wouldn't write it if it wasn't true to some extent." And they'd be wrong. I stay away from this in my own stories for various reasons, but one is that I'm unfamiliar with the scene, the terminology, etc.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You can also find these women on the club scemne. They are practically walking around with targets on their backs. Most Dom's I know would not take advantage but many will. Sad to say the ligament story is not as rare as it should be.

Withall due respect, I say: Duh. When people figure out that there's an advantage to be taken, its damn difficult to hold back.

Over the course of my series I have received several comments that "I get it right:" on the BDSM front. Things about thhe fact that in a true relationship there needs to be trust and it starts slow and works its way up. one of the more recent one's complimented me on the fact that they have a safe word. Shame having it right is what gets attention, shows how many misconceptions are out there.

And the most basic misconception is that there MUST BE a Dom/sub relationship in order to enjoy really kinky, really intense, really relationship-enhancing sex.

Every time. Or else you're DOING IT WRONG.

It's a shame that people think "safeword" is the marker for having everything else right.

 

[lovecraft68]

Withall due respect, I say: Duh. When people figure out that there's an advantage to be taken, its damn difficult to hold back. And the most basic misconception is that there MUST BE a Dom/sub relationship in order to enjoy really kinky, really intense, really relationship-enhancing sex.

Every time. Or else you're DOING IT WRONG.

It's a shame that people think "safeword" is the marker for having everything else right.

You are correct however, "safeword" is in itself a "buzzword" that says 'hey they know what they are doing."

as for the 'duh' depends on the person. Some will take advantage some roll their eyes think 'poser' and walk. Not every male - or female for that matter- is a pure predator.

Although it is where my path started, A cocky eighteen year old with a bad attitude thinking I was all that, fell into the hands of a late thirties woman who was more than happy to 'put me in my place'. Learned the hard way but what the hell it was fun.

When a relationship gets to a certain point it should no longer be needed. I think the Dom/sub misconception falls under 'look at the source' people reading these stories expect it. Remember you are talking misconception not reality.

 

[flameinacorset]

That's sweet. But you're not going to blame me if you go to a therapist, right?

You don't need to worry. My issues has nothing to do with reading Romance.

 

[PennLady]

You are correct however, "safeword" is in itself a "buzzword" that says 'hey they know what they are doing."

...

When a relationship gets to a certain point it should no longer be needed. I think the Dom/sub misconception falls under 'look at the source' people reading these stories expect it. Remember you are talking misconception not reality.

But if these people were looking at the source, and taking that into consideration, likely there would be fewer of the incidents we've been talking about. LC is right, I think, in that when people unfamiliar with a scene like BDSM except for the most vague notions see a story using a buzzword, they will credit that story with more reality than it probably deserves.